The Liam Fox amend to the FSB - so may questions. So many misunderstandings and lastly - without Govt support - so little chance. To deal with the last first - this is the bit that puzzles me. This is weighty, detailed, researched amendment. It was not done in a hurry 1/n

(and was not done by Liam Fox). Where did this come from and who from? And why would someone apparently skilled in drafting spend significant time on an amendment which is almost certainly doomed to go nowhere at all (see below). 2/n

What the amend does, in a nutshell, is i) to prevent forfeiture or insolvency (though not money claims) on any fire safety RRO 2005 related costs to leaseholders after the FSB is in force, and ii) to require a relevant person - freeholder for short - to refer these FSB… 3/n

related costs to the Secretary of State to determine who should pay them and in what proportion. (Potential payees include developers, product manufacturers, contractors, freeholders & leaseholders. Limitation on build defects is disapplied for these purposes) 4/n

Now this is epic. Not only does it require the Secretary of State to decide on apportionment of costs liability on *every* 2005 RR) order related notice, order or guidance after the date in force - and that is thousands of buildings - but it also brings in retrospective 5/n

liability for builders, developers, contractors and product manufacturers in a way that not only ensures a challenge to the legislation, but ensures that each SoS decision on apportionment of costs would be subject to judicial review (the thousands of them). 6/n

So, it is a very big step, and one with consequences that the thorough drafting of the amendment can’t escape. But, what it does not do - and this should be clear - is prevent leaseholder liability. If it was enacted, it may reduce leaseholder liability, depending.. 7/n

entirely on the SoS decision as to where costs liability should fall, and indeed the solvency of those parties. The amendment simply makes it harder for builders/developers/product manufacturers to escape a degree of liability. It doesn’t absolve leaseholders from paying 8/n

And lastly, no amendment to the FSB is going to be voted on in the Commons next Tuesday unless the Govt agree. Either this amend is a govt handoff to a beard of a backbencher, in which case it has a shot, or it is not - in which case this amend will not go to a vote 9/n

If the latter - and I say this as someone who has spent time on drafting and supporting a number of amendments to Bills that did not succeed, as well as one Act that did - what a waste of serious thinking and drafting time for whomever was behind this.

Lastly, I have to point out that leaving this huge discretion to the Secretary of State, while disapplying current law on liability and limitation, with no criteria for a decision, or route for appeal is, well, bonkers in public law terms.